Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Sjors Provoost sjors@sprovoost.nl 10 months ago

> If development were primarily about choice the developers ought to instead just ship a copy of GCC: there tada, you get all the choices, write your own node. :) /u/nullc Jokes aside, it's a good post. https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kab15o/bitcoin_cores_github_mods_have_been_banning_users/mpou6xb/

Replies (2)

Melvin Carvalho _@melvincarvalho.com 10 months ago

It is a good point. I tend to favour the abstract. But very often it's the constraints that define the nature of the system. I think that's why it took Satoshi many years to finish the first public version of bitcoin.

Sjors Provoost sjors@sprovoost.nl 10 months ago

The most effective way to encourage significant censorship by all miners is to credibly threaten them with reorgs if they include bad things. Needless to say, that would set terrible precedent and probably be the actual end of Bitcoin.

Sjors Provoost

If you're going to reorg a block because its content is evil, or just doesn't obey your favorite new soft fork rules, please put its hash in a coinbase OP_RETURN of your alternative block. That proves you saw the block but chose not to accept it. As opposed to just having missed it, as with a typical stale block. Call it a Bad Uncle block? You could even do this with weak blocks (reduced proof of work) if all you have is a BitAxe.

View quoted note →